 |
|  |
 |
|
Pyrodrew
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller
This is mostly a function of the climate after 9-11, than the schools I believe. It is a terrible hassle to come to the US to study now.
Jon Miller |
I agree.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ritaineducation
quote:
Foreign student enrollment drops steeply in Britain
LONDON (AFP) - The numbers of foreign students at British universities has dropped sharply, underscoring the dangers of tough immigration and visa rules.
...
UUK appealed to the British government to follow the US lead in abandoning its tough immigration laws that have led to a steep decline in foreign admissions across the Atlantic.
|
And, as I've mentioned in other threads, I agree with Pekka that decreasing the number of smart immigrants trying to legally get into this country is not a good idea.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002 time: 07:17
|
|
Pyrodrew, right. It doesn't show in the near future, but in the longer run, it will definitely hurt the possibilities and potential.
Then again, it's not so clear cut case, in the big scheme of things, if parts of the top scientists and future hacks stay in their own countries, or spread around in Asia and Europe more, no doubt will those regions benefit from it, then again, when Europe and Asia and other parts of the world grow more prosperous and catch the US, who says it's bad for US. I can be a good thing economically too. It will definitely be a booster to democracy everywhere, because the good economy can and should mean less povery, which can and should mean less space for fundies, and most importantly their spiritual supporters amongst common men. This in its way will reduce costs of fighting terror and international crime. It should increase competition, and if it raises the minimum wages etc in Asia and other parts of the world, if labor starts costing more, it means maybe more jobs will stay in original countries.
who knows. It's not that clear cut case, BUT for certain making it more difficult for top people to come in and explore and prosper won't do so much good in the future in the regions that the restrictions apply in, directly. In the world of science, I don't think it really matters, the people will keep on inventing and developing no matter where they are, even with a little cheaper tools and environment.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:17
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Oerdin
I showed several including:
quote:
If more than a third of Iraqis don't show for their election, no country in the world will think that election legitimate. |
Turn out was around 60% so 40% didn't vote and still it's considered a great success and a high turn out rate plus just about every country in the world has endorsed the results. That's a big factual error on the author's part. |
I repeat--you did not show a factual error, but errors in logic. There is a difference, you know.
The above isn't a factual error, because A) the pieace was written BEFORE the Iraqi elections and B) the author is stating his opinion on reaction, were it to be the case. It's not a case of him saying something purportedly to be a fact which is certainly not true. You did not point out anything of that nature.
quote: I've learned that usually when there is smoke there is fire so if I find the reporter has a few errors then typically he has lots more errors just waiting to be found. It's a good indication that the reporters work can't be trusted or in the very least should be taken with a grain of salt. That's just my hang up though. |
Right, and as I said, this is a logical fallacy. Especially since you've failed to point out a real factual error as of yet.
quote: Lastly, the comparision I made above between two unfounded claims most certainly was valid. |
Considering he cited an easily-referenced source for the claim (and one that it turned out was entirely correct), I find it bizarre you can still maintain this with any sense of honesty. 
The comparison was also invalid because I didn't assert what he said was true, I only stated that believing it false because you haven't personally encountered it is a dumb bit of reasoning. How that translates that I would therefore somehow believe the banana nonsense, I don't know.
quote: I like to do what I call a reality check on satistics especially satistics from an ideological source since it helps sniff out the BS. If a "fact" sounds false, doesn't add up, and doesn't jive with anything |
Of course, if you wanted to actually be intellectually honest, you could actually do some research into whether or not an assertion is true, instead of categorically denying it based on your "intuition." That will save you embarrassments such as this where it is shown your "intuition" is dead wrong.
quote: The claim that 20% of Americans think the sub rotates around the news falls into that catagory especially after it's been shown the guy made numerous other distortions and out right factual errors. |
Except that it's been shown to be a real statistic from surveys. You're amazing in your logical contortions. Oh, and I reiterate--you haven't shown a factual error yet!
I'll say it just one more time, maybe it will sink in: dismissing claims (especially ones that cite an easily-verified source) based on the argument "I haven't personally encountered it, so it isn't true!" is dumb.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17. Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|